• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran's powerful Guard rejects inspection of military sites

Well, who else are we supposed to believe, our lying ears?



Vast right wing conspiracies......

I know a little bit about Iranian culture from expats who are in large numbers. I figure when those who were born there say "death to America" means death to America I am inclined to believe them over an internet post from the same people who "explain" Obama's statements
 
According to our administration, all options are on the table. Must be a really big table, huh? I can think of a lot of options.


Heya HB. :2wave: Uhm, that's you and pretty much the rest of planet. But we are speaking about Team BO. They're special and use their own round table.
 
:doh

1. The IRGC is the body that actually controls the nuclear program. So what they say about it is sort of, well, definitional.

2. This may astonish some of our posters, but Iranian leadership actually cares more about maintaining the support of the populace and elites than they do foreign liberals. If they are going to have a de jure / de facto differential, that differential is going to be designed to appeal to the hardliners, not American doves.




Generally speaking, however, I never cease to be amused by the argument that the Iranians are just a bunch of liars, so therefore we can trust them:lol:

That's Obama's foreign policy!

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
This is clearly just chest-pumping for the locals.

What the generals say means nothing...now if the negotiators (who say what they are told from the leaders) say this, then it's something.

Maybe they will, I dunno.

But what some testosterone-filled Iranian general says means as much as what a testosterone-filled American General says on these matters...next to nothing.

It is actually good news in that the Generals are doing damage control for the "hardliners". They aren't involved with the negotiations at all either.
 
Simpleχity;1064545890 said:
Iran's powerful Guard rejects inspection of military sites


As far as I am concerned, if this is Tehran's official position, then it is a deal breaker.

Nuclear weapons are under the custody and supervision of the military in every nation that has declared itself to be a nuclear-weapon nation. Iran has long been suspected of running two parallel nuclear programs ... one program for the purpose of generating energy and another separate military program to fabricate nuclear warheads and ballistic delivery systems.

The P5+1 nations are negotiating with Iran for the express purpose of guaranteeing that an Iranian military program to acquire nuclear weapons is impossible under strict parameters and an intrusive inspections regimen for the duration of any mutually accepted deal. This lofty goal however, cannot be achieved without the capability of the IAEA to inspect military facilities suspected of nuclear weapons research or uranium enrichment.

Contrary to what is imagined or purported by some, such inspections are not requested on a whim. The IAEA has many highly sophisticated tools to detect possible activity without entering a facility. They would only request access to a military facility if unequivocal technical/documentary evidence exists which demands an in-depth examination to either verify or dismiss suspicions.

Without this critical capability, any P5+1 deal with Iran is illusion and a sham.

The problem is that the Iranian officials are just idiots--they have poor social skills, or else they would know that they should publicly declare they approve of inspections, even though they intend to hide their most critical sites.
 
That's Obama's foreign policy!

True, O wants Iran to actually get nukes, even though he claims otherwise. That was his aim all along--we know, everyone w/noodle knows it, so what's the problem? :rolleyes:

What's such a big deal if Iran has nukes? Explain.
 
True, O wants Iran to actually get nukes, even though he claims otherwise. That was his aim all along--we know, everyone w/noodle knows it, so what's the problem? :rolleyes:

What's such a big deal if Iran has nukes? Explain.

Let's help them!

And while we're at it, lets give nuke to ISIS and whoever wants one.


"More nukes for the world" the new American foreign policy. YOu realize of course my country has completely severed all diplomatic ties with Iran? We are in a state of semi war. Go ahead, help our enemies
 
Let's help them!

And while we're at it, lets give nuke to ISIS and whoever wants one.

Sorry, us taxpayers paid for US nukes, and we don't want to give them away. Doing so would compromise the balance of power in the ME.

OTOH, every sovereign nation WILL develop its own weapons for its own defense, and that's what Iran's nukes are for, so it's no big deal.

There's no way Iran could initiate a war w/another nation w/its nukes or give them to someone who would because it would lead to retaliation leading to Iran's destruction. Therefore, those nukes could only be used for self-defense.
 
The problem is that the Iranian officials are just idiots--they have poor social skills, or else they would know that they should publicly declare they approve of inspections, even though they intend to hide their most critical sites.

The Iranians (and much of the Middle East in general) is used to being able to say what others want to hear in English to foreign audiences, and then another thing entirely in Arabic or Farsi to local audiences, without it being too problematic for them. Teh Interwebz is changing the game on them, but many are slow to catch up.
 
Heya HB. :2wave: Uhm, that's you and pretty much the rest of planet. But we are speaking about Team BO. They're special and use their own round table.

...with a big hole in the middle like a doughnut. I'm thinking it's a long, dark hole. However, take heart - we're dispatching a carrier and a missile cruiser to Yemen, which has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the nuclear talks with Iran whatsoever. None. As long as we get a piece of paper with the headliner "Good Nuclear Deal", Obama can claim success and seal his legacy, as well as the fate of a non-nuclear ME. Well done.
 
...with a big hole in the middle like a doughnut. I'm thinking it's a long, dark hole. However, take heart - we're dispatching a carrier and a missile cruiser to Yemen, which has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the nuclear talks with Iran whatsoever. None. As long as we get a piece of paper with the headliner "Good Nuclear Deal", Obama can claim success and seal his legacy, as well as the fate of a non-nuclear ME. Well done.

Yeah Chainsaw has a thread up on it.....BO has sent in the Teddy Roosevelt. We already had 9 other ships in the region. Cruiser and Destroyers. BO is definitely flexing to the Iranians as they were sent to make sure Iran doesn't try to arm the Houthi. BO wanted that known.
 
Yeah Chainsaw has a thread up on it.....BO has sent in the Teddy Roosevelt. We already had 9 other ships in the region. Cruiser and Destroyers. BO is definitely flexing to the Iranians as they were sent to make sure Iran doesn't try to arm the Houthi. BO wanted that known.

I guess Obama doesn't like the Iranian leadership and generals laughing at him. I honestly hope Obama puts enough stuff in there that they won't try anything, but just because we have a lot of power there doesn't mean they won't. Obama has proven to be, well, indecisive in the face of such confrontations in the past. Sometimes pushing a little button eliminates the necessity of pushing the big one. Besides, we have a lot of carriers sitting in their berths at Newport News in the James not doing much of anything.
 
my point was that high ranking iranian officials opposed to an agreement would be inclined to speak out in opposition to it just as high ranking American officials would speak out in objection to such an agreement
not surprised something so simple was lost on you

No, I caught it, so you were offering nothing but your own opinion, IOW, talking ****.
 
I guess Obama doesn't like the Iranian leadership and generals laughing at him. I honestly hope Obama puts enough stuff in there that they won't try anything, but just because we have a lot of power there doesn't mean they won't. Obama has proven to be, well, indecisive in the face of such confrontations in the past. Sometimes pushing a little button eliminates the necessity of pushing the big one. Besides, we have a lot of carriers sitting in their berths at Newport News in the James not doing much of anything.


He might be catching on that Iranians have been smacktalkin him. You know how he wont like that. Just took some time to filter thru the grey matter. Must have been the Farsi that was throwing him off. You know how sometimes words can have two meanings. :lol:
 
No, I caught it, so you were offering nothing but your own opinion, IOW, talking ****.

yes, talking sense
however, i do recognize that is a foreign concept to you

just as our neocons in the senate sent a letter to the iranian government undermining Obama's efforts to impede iran's efforts to develop nuclear armaments
a senior iranian general voiced his opposition to the pending agreement in his own attempt to undermine any agreement which would thwart his military's opportunity to join the nuclear weapons club
 
He might be catching on that Iranians have been smacktalkin him. You know how he wont like that. Just took some time to filter thru the grey matter. Must have been the Farsi that was throwing him off. You know how sometimes words can have two meanings. :lol:

Just happened to look a carrier disposition. Seems like we're a little better off than we were a year ago. Like any other sea going vessel, if they sit for extended periods bad things happen to them that make deployment problematic. With ships this size even some simple problems are huge.
 
Just happened to look a carrier disposition. Seems like we're a little better off than we were a year ago. Like any other sea going vessel, if they sit for extended periods bad things happen to them that make deployment problematic. With ships this size even some simple problems are huge.

Well, where there be an Aircraft carrier.....I would expect there be a sub or two. So there is no mistaking that BO flexed back.....while still playing the role as part of a Coalition.
 
Well, where there be an Aircraft carrier.....I would expect there be a sub or two. So there is no mistaking that BO flexed back.....while still playing the role as part of a Coalition.

No doubt Obama has felt Iran's leaders. Also, no doubt there's a sub or two around the group. I'd give Obama a check on this, but it all depends on how things transpire. I expect the Iranian vessels will not want to be boarded for quite a few reasons. I also expect that if Obama wants his agreement on the nukes, he'd prefer that we don't have to board those ships. Should be interesting, and hopefully a peaceful deterrent to any further inflammation in the area.
 
No doubt Obama has felt Iran's leaders. Also, no doubt there's a sub or two around the group. I'd give Obama a check on this, but it all depends on how things transpire. I expect the Iranian vessels will not want to be boarded for quite a few reasons. I also expect that if Obama wants his agreement on the nukes, he'd prefer that we don't have to board those ships. Should be interesting, and hopefully a peaceful deterrent to any further inflammation in the area.

Being part of the Coalition BO will want to show we can do our part. Today its all reported what the ships were being sent for. But we did have a Pentagon Official come out with. We were just repositioning our ships. BSmith put up the link on it yesterday. Then all the MS Media was reporting on it this morning.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warship-off-yemeni-coast.html#post1064549268
 
Being part of the Coalition BO will want to show we can do our part. Today its all reported what the ships were being sent for. But we did have a Pentagon Official come out with. We were just repositioning our ships. BSmith put up the link on it yesterday. Then all the MS Media was reporting on it this morning.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-warship-off-yemeni-coast.html#post1064549268

The suspicion is that surface to air missiles may be on board those ships. Would make sense. If I were the Iranians, that's exactly what I'd try to get in there to negate the air power arrayed against the Houthies. The desire of all these thug groups obviously is to pressure the opposition to get ground troops involved.
 
He might be catching on that Iranians have been smacktalkin him. You know how he wont like that. Just took some time to filter thru the grey matter. Must have been the Farsi that was throwing him off. You know how sometimes words can have two meanings. :lol:

If it were anyone else, I'd have to agree with you, but he still has ValJar advising him, so nothing has changed. This is supposed to look like a show of military capability as a warning to Iran, and if it were anyone but Iran, it might work, but with Russia backing Iran by sending them equipment and personnel to help on their centrifuges plus aircraft for missile delivery, this is just a diversion, IMO. Getting arms to the Houthi in Yemen can be accomplished in other ways, and has nothing whatsoever to do with our endless negotiating on Iranian nuclear talks, although it's being made to look like it is. We could have helped Yemen earlier.

If Iran backs down, BHO can crow that we have the upper hand in the talks, and we should give them a chance to prove they are trustworthy and will honor any agreement that can be reached because they fear us...blah, blah, blah. Bull****! We'll see how an actual confrontation with Iranian ships is handled, but I'll hazard a guess it won't be us giving them problems, but one of the other countries that are also involved, if it goes that far, and since none of them are fond of us, and they don't want any agreement made with Iran, I wouldn't rule out an "accidental" hit to one of our ships, by one of them. What'll we do then, and why are we even involved in this quagmire? :2mad:
 
Simpleχity;1064545890 said:
Iran's powerful Guard rejects inspection of military sites


As far as I am concerned, if this is Tehran's official position, then it is a deal breaker.

Nuclear weapons are under the custody and supervision of the military in every nation that has declared itself to be a nuclear-weapon nation. Iran has long been suspected of running two parallel nuclear programs ... one program for the purpose of generating energy and another separate military program to fabricate nuclear warheads and ballistic delivery systems.

The P5+1 nations are negotiating with Iran for the express purpose of guaranteeing that an Iranian military program to acquire nuclear weapons is impossible under strict parameters and an intrusive inspections regimen for the duration of any mutually accepted deal. This lofty goal however, cannot be achieved without the capability of the IAEA to inspect military facilities suspected of nuclear weapons research or uranium enrichment.

Contrary to what is imagined or purported by some, such inspections are not requested on a whim. The IAEA has many highly sophisticated tools to detect possible activity without entering a facility. They would only request access to a military facility if unequivocal technical/documentary evidence exists which demands an in-depth examination to either verify or dismiss suspicions.

Without this critical capability, any P5+1 deal with Iran is illusion and a sham.
Didn't see that coming. :roll:
 
Simpleχity;1064545890 said:
Iran's powerful Guard rejects inspection of military sites


As far as I am concerned, if this is Tehran's official position, then it is a deal breaker.

Nuclear weapons are under the custody and supervision of the military in every nation that has declared itself to be a nuclear-weapon nation. Iran has long been suspected of running two parallel nuclear programs ... one program for the purpose of generating energy and another separate military program to fabricate nuclear warheads and ballistic delivery systems.

The P5+1 nations are negotiating with Iran for the express purpose of guaranteeing that an Iranian military program to acquire nuclear weapons is impossible under strict parameters and an intrusive inspections regimen for the duration of any mutually accepted deal. This lofty goal however, cannot be achieved without the capability of the IAEA to inspect military facilities suspected of nuclear weapons research or uranium enrichment.

Contrary to what is imagined or purported by some, such inspections are not requested on a whim. The IAEA has many highly sophisticated tools to detect possible activity without entering a facility. They would only request access to a military facility if unequivocal technical/documentary evidence exists which demands an in-depth examination to either verify or dismiss suspicions.

Without this critical capability, any P5+1 deal with Iran is illusion and a sham.

Until we make all Nations in that neighborhood play by the same rules, and that would be Israel, then I support the Guard position. Iran has attacked noone and has not tested a nuclear weapon, whereas Israel actually helped South Africa develop their Nuclear weapons. South Africa shed its' nukes and perhaps Israel should also. Your "ifs" and Mights' on the issue are just the stenographer viewpoints from the internal propaganda machine. It has been conclusively proven that the USA created the sham nuke threat by Iran for political reasons, not for regional security or for USA National Security interests. At least we haven't used our smooth talking Libya intervention that spreads chaos, death and destruction in Iran yet, but hey, there's still time to bomb and kill Iranians. Demon's seed, don't ya' know. Probably related to Putin.
 
Until we make all Nations in that neighborhood play by the same rules, and that would be Israel, then I support the Guard position. Iran has attacked noone and has not tested a nuclear weapon, whereas Israel actually helped South Africa develop their Nuclear weapons. South Africa shed its' nukes and perhaps Israel should also. Your "ifs" and Mights' on the issue are just the stenographer viewpoints from the internal propaganda machine. It has been conclusively proven that the USA created the sham nuke threat by Iran for political reasons, not for regional security or for USA National Security interests. At least we haven't used our smooth talking Libya intervention that spreads chaos, death and destruction in Iran yet, but hey, there's still time to bomb and kill Iranians. Demon's seed, don't ya' know. Probably related to Putin.

Can we see that "conclusive proof" by any chance?
 
If it were anyone else, I'd have to agree with you, but he still has ValJar advising him, so nothing has changed. This is supposed to look like a show of military capability as a warning to Iran, and if it were anyone but Iran, it might work, but with Russia backing Iran by sending them equipment and personnel to help on their centrifuges plus aircraft for missile delivery, this is just a diversion, IMO. Getting arms to the Houthi in Yemen can be accomplished in other ways, and has nothing whatsoever to do with our endless negotiating on Iranian nuclear talks, although it's being made to look like it is. We could have helped Yemen earlier.

If Iran backs down, BHO can crow that we have the upper hand in the talks, and we should give them a chance to prove they are trustworthy and will honor any agreement that can be reached because they fear us...blah, blah, blah. Bull****! We'll see how an actual confrontation with Iranian ships is handled, but I'll hazard a guess it won't be us giving them problems, but one of the other countries that are also involved, if it goes that far, and since none of them are fond of us, and they don't want any agreement made with Iran, I wouldn't rule out an "accidental" hit to one of our ships, by one of them. What'll we do then, and why are we even involved in this quagmire? :2mad:

Did you know ValJar was born in Iran?
Yes Yes Yes, it was long ago, but curious nonetheless.
And completely in keeping with the coterie Obama has always seemed to prefer associating with.
 
Back
Top Bottom